Talk:WWE ECW

I support keeping them seperate

There are huge differences from the newly created ECW product and the promotion known as ECW that dissolved in 2001. While I agree that there are some explicit connections between the two promotions/brands, they are different enough to warrent keeping them seperate.

Yeah, I made some changed to both articles so they didn't overlap as much. This one solely focuses on the brand now, nothing about the Invasion, and the documentary and DVD stuff are only included in how ECW was resurrected as a brand. Funny how since I made those changes all the calls to re-merge them stopped. --JFred 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another merge request

Two pages for ECW is redundant as hell. Like it or not, the current ECW is a continuation of the old promotion, and is being treated as such. It may be owned by the WWE, but is no more a brand than DSW or OVW are. Consolidate these entries, ASAP. Template:Dan

Note: I am not the person who began this section. The person who did apparently did so by posting his message in a section heading

First things first: The new ECW is a WWE brand, as has been stated by WWE themselves. However, I still believe that this incarnation of ECW should still be recognized as a continuation of the original promotion. That said, keeping the articles seperate serves an important and practical purpose: Namely, that the new ECW has some distinct characteristics that separate it from the original. In addition, if we used the page for the original promotion to provide information about the new brand, info about the old brand would be neglected. Having separate pages doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia is taking a position that the defunct promotion and the WWE brand are totally seperate from each other. Jeff Silvers 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be kept seperate. Even though ECW the Brand is an extension of ECW the Promotion, there are still some differences. One thing is that, like RAW and SmackDown!, this page has info on ECW as a TV show. Also, the 5 year absence definately has an impact. Also, the roster situation is different, the talent in ECW the Promotion was under ECW contracts, however, talent with ECW the Brand are under WWE contracts, so seperating the brand from the promotion keeps the ECW alumni page from unwarranted changes (just because alumni of ECW the Promotion are part of ECW the Brand doesn't mean they should be taken off the ECW alumni page since the Brand contracts are WWE contracts, not ECW contracts). Plus it prevents the ECW the Promotion page from getting too long, because if a page goes above a certain size, it needs to either be trimmed or split. --JFred 00:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that today's ECW is a brand name used by WWE can be explained in a consolidated ECW article that deals with ECW's past as a separate company and its current status as a WWE brand name.

--Unopeneddoor 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)I agree. Merge the articles. So what if this ECW is a brand? The titles, wrestlers history and storylines are from the original ECW.

Look at other examples found here on Wikipedia of brand names given new life. Sierra Entertainment and Atari, among many others, were defunct companies whose names were acquired and used by other companies. However, their histories are listed on one chronological page, not on separate pages. I think this is the example that should be followed in order to minimize confusion to information seekers.

Also, ECW on SciFi (the show) should have a separate page from ECW (the brand), as the brand is also used for live events and pay-per-views, not just a weekly television show.

Slickster 01:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, WWE RAW and WWE Friday Night SmackDown! have their own live events and pay-per-views, but no distinction is made between the brand and the television show. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say no to seperating the show from the brand because then we'd have to do the same for RAW and SmackDown!. The RAW and SmackDown! pages are for both the show and brand, same as this page. --JFred 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I changed my mind. This rubbish doesn't belong with the real ECW. - Dan

Refocusing of content

I suggest a slight reword. Have this page focus solely on the relaunch as a brand. the other ECW article also mentions the Invasion and the DVD's that were put out. Mention the relaunch briefly on the ECW page, and use this page as the main article. --JFred 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked this article to better reflect it's status as a main article for the new promotion section on the original ECW page. --JFred 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we treating the ECW brand as a separate entity?

Are we treating WWE's ECW brand as an entirely separate entity from ECW when it was its own promotion, or is the seperation of the articles just for organization's sake? Jeff Silvers 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit of both. We're more or less differentiating the WWE brand from the defunct promotion as they are different but also keeping it so that the past history from the old article won't get neglected by the extensive current event edits that are bound to be added in by some people. --Oakster ^(Talk) 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This should really be merged in with the ECW article. As mentioned in both articles, ECW was bought out by the WWE so this is just a continuation of the original ECW brand. Reducing the articles into one will reduce the amount of maintenance work that will be required as any future will updates will have to be reflected in both articles. --Bobblehead 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one refers to the former company and this one refers to the new ECW brand. There is a difference. --JFred 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs to be merged with the other ECW article.

I think this is organization is just fine. The Extreme Championship Wrestling brand right now isn't a wrestling promotion by itself - it's a brand promoted by WWE, just like RAW and SmackDown!. This set up draws attention to that distinction. The only issue I have with this is that I think the old promotion should be in another article, and this one should be in Extreme Championship Wrestling. At any rate, there shouldn't be many current event edits here - meaning nothing involving current storylines and such. There should only be some description information and any information about changes to the brand itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If the intent is to make it appear as a promotion for WWE and not as the original ECW, perhaps the article needs to be moved to WWE Extreme Championship Wrestling. WWE Raw, WWE Friday Night SmackDown!, and WWE Heat are all begin "WWE <Show Name>" and the name of this article breaks that convention. However, I couldn't disagree more on moving the article on the original ECW to another and moving this promotion to Extreme Championship Wrestling. That logic implies the two are indistinguishable and the articles need to be merged. --Bobblehead 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But WWE aren't promoting this as "WWE Extreme Championship Wrestling", instead just plainly as "Extreme Championship Wrestling" (to the point of actually refering the other two brands combined as WWE). This is why the parenthesis is used in the naming of this article. --Oakster ^(Talk) 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why is this it's own article then? WWE purchased the ECW in 2001 and after a 3ish year hiatus they are bringing the brand back to life. The Extreme Championship Wrestling article lists the WWE as the current owner and is being updated with the current information as it comes out. Having the two articles is just creating redundancy on wiki where it doesn't need to exist. From what I've seen the WWE is pushing the history of the ECW pretty heavy, so if the owners of ECW are treating it as one in the same, why doesn't wikipedia? --Bobblehead 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The hiatus was actually 5 years, not counting the ECW One Night Stand 2005 show, which was meant to be nothing more than a reunion show. I agree that there is a bit of redundancy here... Clint 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Vince didn't technically buy ECW the promotion, ECW went bankrupt, Vince only bought the rights to the name and the video library, post bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the ECW article shows Vince as buying the promotion, which is technically incorrect. --JFred 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Vince bought everything that remained of ECW, just like he bought everything that remained of WCW... he doesn't own the wrestling rings or the original contracts, but he does own what exists of the promotion, which means he owns the promotion. Clint 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a good compromise would be to combine the articles in chronological order but to have an anchor that starts the page on discussion of the ECW brand. I don't feel the differences between ECW's status as a separate company and its status as a WWE brand are significant enough to merit two separate articles. Few fans consider the ECW brand as separate from the ECW company (or the ECW faction created during late 2001). In addition, splitting the information into two separate articles could confuse casual readers into thinking that ECW is dead or that ECW only started a month ago, depending on which article they find. --Slickster 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Vince McMahon purchased ECW, the company may no longer be owned by Paul Heyman, but it IS the same promotion. This orginization is ridiculous and confusing, and needs to be consolidated under the ECW Promotion. While it is owned by WWE, it is being presented as a seperate promotion, not a WWE Brand. It is no more of a WWE Brand than DSW or OVW. PLEASE CONSOLIDATE THIS.

Vince is also trying to push RAW and Smackdown as separate feuding entities... no one buys it. The encyclopedia article shouldn't deal with the kayfabe relationship between WWE and ECW, it should deal with the real relationship. WWE is promoting the shows, contracting the wrestlers, handling the front office work, etc. and Vince gets the final say in everything. This is a WWE brand... DSW and OVW are separate promotions entirely. They are developmental promotions that are run by WWE, but are not directly controlled by WWE the same way that RAW, Smackdown, and ECW are... Clint 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Joint PPV's

Just curious, but will the new ECW have anything to do with WWE joint pay-per-views, like Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Summerslam, and Survivor Series?

Could be since they're already cross-promoting with the other brands, but there's nothing definite yet. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A WrestleMania headlined by three separate world title matches (World Heavyweight, WWE, and ECW)... that'd be something. Jeff Silvers 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

*drool* --JFred 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ECW PPVs

Hey does anyone know if the newly formed ECW will have it's own PPV's; like RAW and SmackDown! do? Thanks! User:GunFactor007 24:15, 2 June 2006

From what I've read, ECW is essentially on a trial basis for the summer. ECW will be running the announced schedule of house shows as well as its weekly TV show on SciFi Network. McMahon will reevaluate his position on the brand and his backing of it at the end of the summer to see if ratings are strong and house show attendance is plausable enough to warrent a full time run.Mattbwn 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a TBA PPV in December; the rumor mill's been buzzing that it might be a second ECW PPV. Other than that, it's not likely to get a whole lot of PPV time. --HBK|Talk 14:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I imagine what they'll do with the December PPV is use it for ECW if it becomes successful enough to keep after the summer. Otherwise, it'll probably just be a RAW/SmackDown!/joint event. I sorta thought it'd be awesome if they resurrected the Starrcade name for the event (if it isn't an ECW PPV).

Oh, and as far ECW having PPVs, I figure they'll at least keep One Night Stand. Jeff Silvers 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aussie TV

Is there a source on the Australian TV carrier? Tromboneguy0186 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the cable company has said they are not showing it [1] Aceboy 03:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For confirmation, the only places the ECW brand will be broadcasted will be USA, Canada, and Europe, mainly the UK. --Xacidx 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though there is no carrier in Canada yet. --JFred 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet we have yet to see an ECW show (not including ONS)on UK tv.

Wrestlers vs. Superstars

Last night during Head to Head I noticed the announcers refered to WWE stars as "Superstars" (which is normal), but ECW stars were refered to as "wrestlers." I didn't think too much of this until I visited the ECW website last night after the show. The section previously titled "Superstars" was changed to "Wrestlers" (the RAW and SmackDown! pages still refer to their bio sections as "Superstars"). Do you think this deliberate shift by WWE in addressing ECW stars as "wrestlers" rather than "Superstars" should be noted on this page? Jeff Silvers 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. WWE's done everything they have to push 'sports entertainment' and 'superstars' insted of wrestling and wrestlers, so it should be worth at least mentioning how WWE is making the distinction when it comes to ECW.DemonWeb 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It reflects back to Styles' worked shoot a few weeks back on RAW Tromboneguy0186 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... now they're calling them "Rebels." Guess WWE can't make their minds up. Jeff Silvers 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't make up there minds? Should we be surprised? *looks at kane* DemonWeb 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I find the whole thing laughable. They're attempting to somehow recreate a feud seimilar to the WWE/WCW one by substituting ECW for WCW. This way, there's no real risk to Vince in terms of his workers being lured away by big fat contracts, ratings sliding, money going down the tubes, etc. since he owns ECW. The whole cross promotional feud just seems stupid to me because there's no real competition. So, to hear the announcers getting at one another's throats, doing shoot interviews, wrestlers from each brand appearing on one another's shows, etc. just kinda makes me laugh at the absurdity. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they're at least attempting to do something with ECW, in which case McMahon needs to just step aside and let Heyman run it while he keeps signing the checks. But, I think that the whole "feud" is an insult to the intelligence of anyone that pays attention. Odin's Beard 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the "feud" is only to get ECW's name out there and after Vengeance the "feud" will end and they will go on to do their own thing. --JFred 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At least they're doing this better than they did The Invasion angle, with WWE and ECW seeming at least slightly different. Jeff Silvers 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to believe it will end until after Great American Bash. ECW has a good bit of "promotional capital" to pay back, and I give them until August before they get to start forging their own path. --EazieCheeze 12:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First Superstars, then Wrestlers, then Rebels, now Extremists, we should take bets on next weeks term.DemonWeb 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"ECW Warriors!" Jeff Silvers 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You heard it here first folks, 4 days until they change to name to ECW Warriors XD DemonWeb 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ECW on Sci Fi section

Cleaned it up a little, added Wiki links, and removed POV statements without sourcing. 71.245.144.10 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Including mine that DID have sourcing. I used 1wrestling as a source and it was removed. Thankfully someone else put that up as well.

1wrestling.com stated they received more feedback on ECW's relaunch than anything and it was all bad. I posted a link to where it said this and it still got deleted. I'm not angry, but I think people need to look at sitations before removing things. --67.52.102.66 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Unopeneddoor

It was most likely deleted because 1wrestling does not count as a confirmable, official source ( as far as I know ), because most websites such as itself are known to have rumors, which while they may be true, are still not officially confirmed. DemonWeb 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. First of all it was fan feedback, something that is confirmed. Second what I said is that the show was critcized by website writers and fans, and that was both.

Plus what it currently says uses 1wrestling as a site--Unopeneddoor 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"At the request of Sci-Fi"

I've removed the comment that suggests that the vampire and zombie characters on the premiere were at the request of Sci-Fi. The zombie character appeared to be a parody of Internet rumors regarding this, whilst there is an interview with head booker Paul Heyman that suggests that the vampire gimmick was his idea. Although such matters will always be ambiguous, it didn't seem verifiable enough to put up. Bigbigtom367 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could say that rumours were that the characters were at the request of sci fi?--67.52.102.66 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a place for rumors and it's not exactly pertinent to the show. Including zombies and aliens isn't exactly uncommon in wrestling. --Bobblehead 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

...When have aliens been seen on professional wrestling? And The Undertaker is the closest to a "zombie" I can think of. Jeff Silvers 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe not, but it seems damn accurate. YOur the only person that I've heards say otherwise, and the legit sites say they were added at Sci Fi's request. In fact I've heard Heyman was angry at having to write for Zombie and Tarot card reading characters. It also would not be starting a rumour but stating what fans believed. I've seen plenty of articles that say things about rumours, but don't say they are true. Plus I think it's pretty important, especially if the new brand fails. I say keep it. If you look at the original ECW article it used to say that VInce never heard of ECW until they started their first "Invasion" I had to reword to say it was a storyline. Why not doing something similar and just say there was a rumour?--Unopeneddoor 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jeff Silvers 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

what time is it on sky sports

WWE Championship

Does noting that Rob Van Dam holds the WWE Championship warrant its own line item under the Current Champions section? As it regards ECW, I think this should be merely a side note. Co-mingling champoinships between brands/promotions in the Wiki article would be unwise. Perhaps a rewrite to note the following:

• ECW World Heavyweight Champion: Rob Van Dam (also current WWE Champion)

Comments? --EazieCheeze 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the WWE Championship is still a RAW championship so it should really be listed there. --JFred 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have it as a sidenote, as he is technically both, but JFred has a point. DemonWeb 00:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So JFred says "leave it like it is" and DemonWeb says "make the change." Am I reading that correctly? --EazieCheeze 18:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understood JFred's comment to mean it should be on Raw's page, and not ECW, but I could be mistaken ^^;. My opinion was to leave it as it was:

• ECW World Heavyweight Champion: Rob Van Dam (also current WWE Champion)

So it'll just be a reminder that RVD is also the WWE champion. DemonWeb 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is definately an interesting situation. Even though the WWE title is held by an ECW wrestler and not a RAW wrestler, I highly doubt it will stay that way. It's being defended at the next RAW PPV anyway, plus ECW is still gonna make appearances on RAW since ECW seems to be feuding with RAW, so I wouldn't call it exclusively ECW yet. Yes, WWE did take the WWE Championship off the RAW roster page, but that's not our problem. ECW's not treating the WWE championship as their own anyway, so I doubt it will remain ECW. All of this will be a moot point after Vengeance anyway. --JFred 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How to add the reception of premiere show?

How should the negative reception of the premiere show be discussed on here? What is written at the moment, something like 'because they were expecting the old ECW' seems wrong and unsupported by the references given. For example, in the 1wrestling.com article linked, Bob Ryder writes that "I agree with Vince McMahon that the "new" ECW will have to move beyond the same wrestlers who were part of the original product. Many of those performers are simply not physically able to continue to perform at the level they were able to five years ago. ", obviously not supporting that.

I think that the negative reception needs to be discussed, but any suggestions? Bigbigtom367 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If that sentence is all you got out of Bob Ryder's article you seriously need to go back and read it.. :) However, since I wrote the sentence in question, I'll clarify by providing the next sentence in the article "Focusing on new talent, while mixing in ECW alumni, doesn't mean you have to abandon the principles the company was based on.." The 'old ECW' was not necessarily famous because of the wrestlers, it was the no holds barred wrestling style of those wrestlers. It was this wrestling style the ECW fans were expecting. What they got was just another WWE brand. So perhaps update the sentence to reflect they were expecting the ECW wrestling style. Don't want to put too much emphasis on it, but a mention of the disappointment is warranted.--Bobblehead 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no, I did read it more carefully than that, it was just one sentence I pulled out that seemed to make your sentence questionable :) The issue I had was is that Ryder seems to argue that it was just a plain bad show (which it was), not because it wasn't the old ECW, and his proposed solution was to just let Heyman get on with it. I think he was using the term 'ECW' more as a marker of quality than as a reference to a set of wrestlers or, even, a wrestling style. I agree the mention of disappointment is warranted though, just perhaps a little more clarity regarding the reasons for that.Bigbigtom367 23:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The impression I've gotten is that it was a bad show no matter what you compare it too. That's the way I read all the criticism. --JFred 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe, instead of saying people were expecting the old ECW, that the critics were hoping for something closer to the old ECW than something like RAW or SD!. --JFred 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The IWC just want more reasons to be anti-WWE... they were told from the start the show wasn't going to be exactly like the ECW of the old, but they still wanted an excuse to hate Vince and co..

Should we add the better reception of the second episode stating:

However the second episode (which aired live) was given a better reception by fans and critics after elements were adjusted such as lighting, the supernatural characters, and the overall booking of the show.

Violent-kun 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see this becoming a weekly think, which I think we should avoid. Personally, I think that the reception of the show should be a different section. --JFred 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Axl Rotten

What is this guys status with the WWE now?

There's been no official word yet. Either he's been fired and WWE hasn't mentioned it, or he's being punished, we're not sure. --JFred 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I can't cite it, there have been reports from a few of the more accurate internet sites that Axl has decided to take some time off from wrestling and was released from his contract. WWE is most likely keeping it quiet since he never made an appearance with the new brand. Genocidal 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

While he hasn't appeared for the brand yet, WWE already reported his signing and added him to the roster page, so I don't see why they would keep it quiet. That's just my thinking anyway. --JFred 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

UK?

Is this actually on UK television? It's not on Sky Sports 3.....

It is on Sunday nights at 10pm